reignofconflagrationfandomcom-20200216-history
Forum:Further Units
The Mystery Defenses Hazza-the-Fox 22:47, December 19, 2011 (UTC) Ok, so here we discuss these mystery defenses. The Middle Defenses Hazza-the-Fox 22:47, December 19, 2011 (UTC) Ok, so this section is about the need for a defense structure that fills in the need for some medium-light defense. I'll explain. #At the start, players get infantry-dependent defenses that merely provide cover for your infantry weapons, and are otherwise empty shells. #Players get an AA defense from the Depot #- #Prism Tower/Tesla Coil- deadly to all targets, but very slow (as well as expensive) #Mega national defenses As you can see, there is absolutely no ground defense at all beyound your combat units' own weapons, and the top-end defenses. At the moment we are lacking a sentry gun/Defender VX tier defense. However, because the top-end defenses are generally good against vehicles and infantry alike- any specialist defenses would prove slightly redundant against these, and given the preference of infantry, we don't want a specialist anti-infantry defense either. SO I reckon, the obvious course of action is something that is moderately and generally effective against infantry AND vehicles, does light damage but has a fair rate of fire, long-ish range (something like the M2 Bradley's gun). Providing slightly suppressive cover fire for both your slow-firing Prism/Tesla towers, heavy-hitting tanks, and also for your faster-firing but lighter rifle infantry. The precise function of these depends on what roles the bunker-type structures fill, as well as the AA structures. VolteMetalic 19:02, December 20, 2011 (UTC): I dont know... Hazza-the-Fox 00:03, December 21, 2011 (UTC) It's definitely a good idea- as neither side has any need for heavy defenses, their infantry units will provide the light defenses- but they lack something to support their other weapons and heavy defenses alike. I think we'd also need to think of what kind of attacks each side would deliver normally, and what they'd be missing. VolteMetalic 12:42, December 21, 2011 (UTC): Hmmm? Hazza-the-Fox 23:02, December 21, 2011 (UTC) Well, for Soviets, our typical ground defensive options (units that can defend without running a great distance before returning fire) are the conscript, Flak Trooper (all-purpose very-light mortar), Mauler (medium-heavy cannon), possibly a Devestator (heavy twin howitzer), the Psicorps, and the Tesla Coil; Which leaves one of the two attacks from the Flak (which would either assume the medium-defense role itself with direct-shot, or the long-range group-softener with its shrapnel-shower airburst mode). The first option will leave us with a fairly complete defensive roundup- while the second requires another, separate structure. Allies get the Marine, Guardian (medium but very slow anti-tank), Kodiak (heavy cannon), Jager (sniper rifle), Sonic Tank, Mars (innaccurate area-effect volleys), and the Prism Tower. In their case, they would need either for the 'multigunner' defense to fulfill a light specialist turret role- or for some new defensive tower to employ a general-purpose semi-suppressive medium weapon (like the explosive flechette gun I mentioned). VolteMetalic 11:07, December 22, 2011 (UTC): Errr... I think that I forgot the point :D Hazza-the-Fox 22:46, December 22, 2011 (UTC) The point is that we have plenty of light support fire (infantry) and slow ultra-heavy shots (tanks, Prism/Tesla, Guardian)- and what we need is something medium-hitting, that is equally effective against infantry and tanks (although slightly moreso infantry). Our options are the Flak Cannon immediately fills this role with direct-shot, or it uses the airburst cluster-bomb shot and another light structure must fill its place; and ditto for Allies- their multigun pillbox could fill this role- or they would need that fletchette gun I mentioned. The 'Multigun' and Bunker dilemma Hazza-the-Fox 22:47, December 19, 2011 (UTC) Here is the multi-gun/bunker dillemma topic. These serve as pre-reactor defenses (like in Yuri's Revenge)- ideally, harmless without an infantry unit inside them. By being available at the start of the game, it gives the player something meaningful to do while waiting for the basic structures to come online. Also, if they were delivered nanocore style (Albiet by a vehicle that is extremely slow moving when travelling further from base), the open up the option to act as forward defenses, ambush defenses, chokepoints, aside from turtling alone (Which they are also good at). As it is, both side SHOULD get some variation of this kind of structure. And these variations are a standard bunker (stores soldiers like the Battle Fortress does, and accomodates a few special abilities from non-combat units), and a 'multigun' defense (keeping in mind, that a stationary structure would feasibly have a completely new set of functions than a mobile armored car- and these could be heavily geared for new defensive roles- and thus is not redundant). As I said before, unlike Red Alert 3, this mod has a LOT of non-combatative and abstract-function units that could potentially offer a wider range of perks by being garrisoned). Now, the question is, do both sides get nearly identical bunkers (with variation of capacity, and what functions they can get out of their units/ what secondary features they contain, etc)- -and if so, should the multi-gun instead be the Patriot (yes it is like Red Alert 3, but all in all it would be equally sensible, as the patriot could potentially not do anything else, while the Flak Cannon has a ground attack- yet at the same time, any ground attack by the patriot would be redundant against the Mars. VolteMetalic 19:02, December 20, 2011 (UTC): I would more go with the nearly identical bunkers. The multigunner turret, especially how you suggest it (with Patriot as fdefault) pretty much identical to RA3, and already there is a lot of this. For the Patriot, maybe I can solve it. When it will be unlocked by Depot (T1), it will be redundant as there are no aircrafts in T1. Flak Cannon can stay, as it can attack ground too. So, the Patriot may be moved to T2, and the tank gun could be moved on its place of Depot-defense. The toxic mortar could stay on T2, and Patriot will be strictly AA. Hazza-the-Fox 00:00, December 21, 2011 (UTC) I've thought about it and I reckon the best method is that for the Allied Pillbox- instead of a bunker, they should get a completely un-manned multigunner platform as the starting defense opposite the Soviet Battle Bunker (it needs a soldier inside before it does anything), and the Patriot should have an 'infantry cover' (firebase style) which gives an armour bonus (and immunity to being trampled by enemy tanks), but does not actually stop the soldiers getting hit if specifically targeted to be shot at. This would give many benefits- a unique corresponding defense to the Soviet Bunker, a maximum application of non-combatative units for unique defensive roles, an anti-ground purpose for the Patriot, and would also actually encourage players to build these things outside the walls (as the infantry inside generally cannot shoot past walls). As it is, if we don't do that, we wouldn't get any of these benefits, and we'd have more identical bunkers, and the Allies gets the only defense that can't protect itself against ground. The Soviet Battle Bunker does not give modified versions of their infantry's attacks, but does allow some non-combat units to perform some unique functions to tempt players to put them in instead of strictly combat infantry. On that note, I think definitely both the Bunker and Pillbox, along with both AA-capable defenses, should be built by 'nanocore style' like most structures to help encourage and allow players to try different defensive approaches other than strictly turtling behind the walls. As for tech tree- no harm in having the AA defenses available before the aircraft are, even if they won't be attacking anything for a while- as it ultimately gives players a chance to set up a defense. An another note, partly out of artistic limitations, something to consider for the Flak gun. If it were to use the "Shrapnel Shower" attack, it would only need to be pointing upwards at all times- meaning the breech is pointing down, rather than backwards, allowing a single soldier to be seated directly behind it. If it were to attack forward like a cannon against ground targets, it would need to angle both up and down. Also, this would place the breech facing backwards, meaning the operators would need to be seated on the sides. So it would be a two-man gun, with a forward shield. Keep in mind, this would also be the layout for the Grand Cannon (only its front shield is an angular half-turret, rather than a single plate-shield. They'd both look somewhat different, but the discrepancy in appearance would be much higher if the Flak gun had a shrapnel shower mode. I've got a concept for the Grand Cannon, and I'll demonstrate concepts of both versions of Flak Cannons anyway. VolteMetalic 12:42, December 21, 2011 (UTC): ... Sometimes I am asking myself why I even talk, when you dont listen. On one side, you are agaisnt patriot, and on other, you say it would stay where it is. I really hate the Multigunner Turret because of its low efficiency and need of many of them to work properly. It will be more useful to make Wildcats for mobile defense. We already decided that Soviet Battle Bunker will house the non-combat infantry, but they will be doing compltetly nothing, like in normal structures. The nanocore system for defenses is very tricky, as you can literally make a defense in the enemy's gate. In some cases it can ruin the enemy's expansion, or when used agaisnt you, your expansion. To spray ground enemy with the Flak Cannon, you will need to drastically decrease the charge used in the shells, and with it its effectiveness will be gone. Along with it, shrapnels arent effective against vehicles, only agaisnt infantries, especially with the low velocity. Hazza-the-Fox 22:50, December 21, 2011 (UTC) That's easy- the defenses would be somewhat stronger than what the Wildcats can do (each configuration being about as strong as a light specialist defense each). And of course, the other units would be able to deliver some vital boosts for the structure, or nearby units and structures. The point with the other units being able to enter the bunker is that they should actually do some useful non-attack function, so there are more options to players. Thus, an engineer providing auto-repair to the bunker (or other structures) for free, a scout spotting for other structures (rather than just infantry), a spy probably providing some other kind of bonus, etc- helps broaden the options, and players can choose if they'd rather fill their bunkers with Guardians at the expense of other bonuses, or something else. As I said, our options are either to #Use a multigun pillbox for opening defense (and possibly middle defense- with broad applications) and use the Patriot as a firebase for larger garrisons #twin bunkers for both sides and a multigun patriot (which is like RA3- but still better than a standard patriot), #or we just have twin bunkers and an AA that can only be used for AA. The first option would mean that Allies would have their own multi-garrison structure, multigun-pillbox, a ground-useful AA structure and middle-defense structure all in one go (being mixed between two structures), while being distinctly different enough to the Soviets. Yep- I know about the nanocores- I think the simplest method is that the Construction yard's construction radius also has a 'nanocore vehicle accelerator' radius- any 'nanocore' constructor vehicles nearby can move quite quickly- but further away they are laboriously slow (and fragile). Thus, althoguh they could possibly be sent out to the enemy's door or guarding the resources, it requires quite some effort. The way it should be. Flak shells: not necessarily, a large piece of metal falling from a quarter mile in height adds a lot of concussive and penetrative force! And that aside, the shells could be designed to break up into multiple shaped-charges (that technology would be easily available) or even simply that the shells are mini-cluster bombs. VolteMetalic 11:07, December 22, 2011 (UTC): Hmm... lets make a round up. ALLIES *Multigunner Pillbox - T1 - Can fill many tasks (and the sensor array with presence of Scout renders redundant). As it is pillbox, it would instead have only ground-only attacks, and like the pillboxes with option of firing only into one direction (90°). Just to list few. **Marine/Conscript - Machine gun **Guardian - AT missile launcher **Jager - "Sniper cannon" **Tesla Trooper - Tesla gun *AT Gun Turret - T1 - A light AT turret, armed with a gun *Patriot SAM Launcher - T2 - AA missile launcher *Prism Tower - T3 - Long-range defense SOVIETS *Battle Bunker - T1 - Bunker for 5 infnatry, has machine gun *Flak Cannon - T1 - Cannon with option of firing into air and ground *Toxin Mortar - T2 - You forgot this one. A mortar pit which bombards enemies with shells, which spreads radiation or toxic cloud *Tesla Coil - T3 - Strong defense That will dont make sense, tat a truck will move quickly around base, and than like a snail. Well, it will dont be flak than :) The thing is that it also needs the velocity of the entire shell for shrapnels to be more devastating. And, when Germans were using their FlaKs on tanks,they were firing "directly" on them, not like a mortar. And, that reminds me, you completely forgot the Soviet mortar, it will took its job. And for the cannon, it can be still controlled by one guy, why he cant sit beside the gun? Stolen Lab-tech units Hazza-the-Fox 06:49, December 15, 2011 (UTC) For the units acquired by hijacking a lab and stealing tech. Ideally, I'd like to follow the Red Alert 2 logic in making units that are, largely, more for abstract espionage/sabotage tactics than general assaults- although they should obviously be pretty good at fighting too. Naturally of course, RA2's logic was to have one of your side's units outfitted with the other side's tech (eg a Soviet player stole Allied tech- and thus they could build new Crazy Ivan's with Chronoporter Packs- becoming Chrono-Ivans; an allied player would steal another Allied player, and their commandos got Chrono-Packs instead) The only thing to keep in mind is that these units should have some drawbacks, so they don't just supplant the original units (eg Ivans and Commandos, respectively). Also don't forget that because the Crazy Ivan is now a national- it might get a bit odd having a "Chrono Ivan" available to general players too. also, the stolen tech should reward your unit and open up completely new strategic options (eg, a Chrono-Ivan didn't have to pass through any enemies, but merely had to pick a teleport spot that nobody would notice for a while). Usually it seems more 'passive' or 'indirect' support tech that they seem to be carrying. So, with two sides boasting spies, with two combinations each, we'd have 4 units to consider (with some suggestions); *Allied-steals Allied = Chrono Commando (Jager without the sniper rifle or swimming) *Allied-Steals Soviet = (insert Allied unit wielding Psi, Nuclear, Tesla etc- note, RA2 had "Psi Commando") *Soviet-steals Allied = (Soviet unit with Allied tech (Chrono-PsiCorps)??) *Soviet steals Soviet = "Omega PsiCorps" (long-range psychic) If we are considering another layer of Advanced Tech units for the advanced lab, however, I wouldn't be particularly against more assault-oriented units. With that being the case, we'd probably have another 4 units to consider (though to balance with other units, they should be fairly expensive, even if their function isn't that powerful). VolteMetalic 19:13, December 20, 2011 (UTC): Hmm... the Chrono Commando... Allies dont have just Chronotechnology, but other techs, like Sonic, Prism/optics and mirage/camo. From these you can use them not-offensively, like a stunning sonic wave attack, mirage... obvious :P Hazza-the-Fox 23:37, December 20, 2011 (UTC) That is true; as far as outfitting a good Allied infantry unit (likely the Commando) with allied tech goes; it would best be excluding ones already outfitted to commandos (M-COM already has Mirage and Sonic)- which still leaves us with Chrono and Prism (and Napalm)- and possibly robots. So we could easilly have a mixture of the above (Chrono Commando has a Prism gun or flamethrower (the second option allowing a specialist Prism soldier as the advanced unit). VolteMetalic 12:48, December 21, 2011 (UTC): Yes, for the A-A it would make a Prism Legionnaire for example (if with teleportation, I dont know), for A-S a commando of sorts with Tesla gun or electrical attacks (if with teleportation, I dont know), S-A maybe a cyborg unit of sorts. And S-S somehow boosted PsiCorps, but not purely with enhaced psychic, but somehow more offensive... maybe a kind of "Yuri's guard"? Some armored psychics with some weapons, which are undoubtely loyal to Yuri? Hazza-the-Fox 23:04, December 21, 2011 (UTC) These are all good options too. More to think about... VolteMetalic 11:09, December 22, 2011 (UTC): Definitely. There is so many possibilities :) Possible National minor-infantry Hazza-the-Fox 22:47, December 19, 2011 (UTC) A thought just came to mind. Remember how we discussed that France should get some kind of paradrop- and we decided these needed to be Marines, only elite? And similarly, Vietnam could get some kind of 'ambush' summon where the infantry appear immediately on the map? I thought- what if, instead of standard elite infantry, both sides get a slightly augmented Marine/Conscript variant in the paradrops, with some enhanced stats where we want (eg speed, range, regenerates, can plant explosives)? We could potentially have French Paratrooper corps (sabateurs)?, and Vietcong? VolteMetalic 12:49, December 21, 2011 (UTC): Yeah, that could work. But the para plane can be shot, so Vietcong (upgraded Marines) would be created on spot, but it takes time to be controlled, making them vulnerable to attack till they are fully summoned (RA3 made the same with Tankbusters and their summoning ability) Hazza-the-Fox 22:35, December 21, 2011 (UTC) Another possibility is that the Vietcong don't appear all at once, but one at a time, leaving those that are there vulnerable? VolteMetalic 11:17, December 22, 2011 (UTC): That will make them too slow :D That power in RA3 worked like this. 5 Tankbusters appears in the circle, and all slowy rises from the ground. During this time they cant move or attack, but can be attacked. The Vietcong would work the same. Hazza-the-Fox 22:42, December 22, 2011 (UTC) Could work Aircraft Types The Atlas/Incendiary Question Hazza-the-Fox 13:17, December 13, 2011 (UTC)13:16, December 13, 2011 (UTC)13:15, December 13, 2011 (UTC) Ok, here we are figuring out exactly what to do with our Allied Aircrafts- in particular, those large attack planes. As it stands, Soviets don't get anything of the sort at all as a standard unit, and have either fighters or free-standing (or free-floating) aircraft). The Allies have the Atlas, Nightwing, Hurricane, and an unnamed incendiary aircraft. Of these, two are nationals, the Nightwing is a long-ranged Tier 4 craft. Which leaves an empty space for the remainder to fill tier 3. So far, there is not a single non-national Tier 3 aircraft- and in particular, no non-national aircraft to fill the runway until Tier 4, if we are using runway craft (which would probably be better, gameplay-wise). On a side note, there is at present only one type of fighter for both sides. And there is at present no 'drive by' heavy gunship that flies around spraying weapons. I've thought a bit about this, and think I have some solutions. We can both agree that *presuming* we are sticking with runway craft, that the Hurricane would be one of them, as it is too extreme to be used as a fighter; which leaves us with something between the Atlas and the incendiary craft, with the options being; #Atlas is a national, free-standing floating weapons platform that is either built and released- or summoned from the Hangar. Therefore, filling the runway vacuum in non-national is the incendiary craft, acting as a kind of mid-heavy incendiary bomber (or gunship with incendiary rounds), whose rounds have the same impact as the FlameBot's secondary attack). #The Atlas is a non-national STOL that acts sorta like a Spectre gunship, leaving the incendiary free to be either a national STOL bomber, or even a napalm fighter/drone with incendiary bombs, possibly even flamethrowers for 'crop dusting' runs against infantry. I'd say one of those two and we'd be done. Either combination would be fine. VolteMetalic 13:27, December 13, 2011 (UTC): I would go with the first option. Atlas being National of Brazil, and the napalm craft be a standard aircraft. But, I would move it to T2, becuase there is no other aircraft which stays on runway and is buildable from the moment you construct the Airbase. Because, Hurricane is T3, Atlas is national T3 and is summoned "from the skies", and Nightwing is T4. Airbase is build at T2, the result is obvious, the napalm craft would be T2. And, as the Airbase if for only one plane (or two?), it would be something larger than a Raptor, but not too large like Nightwing. Something between it, a light bomber. Hazza-the-Fox 22:48, December 13, 2011 (UTC) Thinking about it, option 1 is the best. I think actually the incendiary craft (I'll codename DevilWing for now) should actually be Tier 3- as there is at present, two Tier 2 hangar craft (the Comanche and Blackhawk- not to mention the Raptors in the AirHQ), and absolutely no Tier 3 craft at all. And should probably be a Spectre gunship that also toggles to drop incendiary bombs. VolteMetalic 13:22, December 14, 2011 (UTC): Than there will be no aircrafts being landed on the Airbase, even these two helis are build from there. And gunship cant carry bombs, there isnt space for the bombs, as there will be the shells and ammunition for gunships other weapons, and bombs require a lot of room. Hazza-the-Fox 21:52, December 14, 2011 (UTC) yes there will- at Tier 2 there will be no STOLs (but instead will be busy making gunships and accelerating their self-rearmamen)t, but Tier 3 and 4 there will be STOLs. And why wouldn't there be room for bombs for the STOLs? Wouldn't they operate like the fighters (only they reserve their bombs till they are overhead, and otherwise fire away their cannons)? VolteMetalic 11:42, December 15, 2011 (UTC): No, you dont understand me. You cant place bombs and guns on one airplane and do the job of bomber and gunship. Because it will dotn have enough bombs to work as bomber and not enough ammuntion to work as gunship. Like one saying "When you are doing two things, you are not doing both fully." The aircraft can have guns OR bombs, not both. Hazza-the-Fox 12:35, December 15, 2011 (UTC) Good question- in that case, I think it depends on which one the Allies need more, and also what exactly the Atlas will be doing. VolteMetalic 11:01, December 16, 2011 (UTC): The question is answered already. The gunship is Nightwing, thought not using cannons but Prism. Napalm bomber is T3 bomber and Atlas will be armed with cannons. Hazza-the-Fox 13:38, December 16, 2011 (UTC) Answers the question for the most part- it depends on how the Raptor, Comanche and Nightwing perform, and if they leave any gaps in the airstrike capabiltiies (although now that I think about it- the effects of having constant napalm drops vs constant barrage would essentially amount to the same thing- so Napalm is probably the best idea. That aside, I think we can now make the remaining Allied Aircraft (Hurricane and Atlas (nats), Nightwing and the unnamed napalm bomber (Devil-Wing? Or some Greek Sun-God?) VolteMetalic 09:39, December 17, 2011 (UTC): How do you mean, "make"? The napalm bomber could be named Dragon for example. Hazza-the-Fox 10:51, December 17, 2011 (UTC) Sorry- I meant 'make' as in we start creating their 'unit pages' now we've sorted out roughly what the aircraft will be ;) VolteMetalic 12:27, December 18, 2011 (UTC): Ahh, fine than :D The Cuban Mystery Aircraft Hazza-the-Fox 13:18, December 13, 2011 (UTC) 13:15, December 13, 2011 (UTC) So it seems we are leaning towards a nuclear/toxin based, possibly siege aircraft, be it airship, gunship/helicopter, or some kind of fighter. Pretty much a discussion of what Soviets would be missing that this thing would fill. They presently have. *An airborne siege craft (Cricket) *An ultra-long range nuclear unit (Desolator) *A fast atomic assault (suicide) striker (Nuke Truck). Therefore, it seems that what is missing would be a nuclear unit with some kind of repetitive but small-area attack (peppering mild toxic drums here and there, leaving smaller puddles of radiation rather than big disasters, so I reckon either. *A large slow bomber craft that sprinkles radioactive cannisters below, or catapults them a medium-ish distance *A mobile toxin mortar/Nuke artillery *Some kind of chemical SCUD launcher, that launches destructible 'drones' that spread radiaition, but can be shot down. VolteMetalic 13:27, December 13, 2011 (UTC): I would go with the large slow plane which fires toxic cruise missiles. The speed and weight makes it a target for Raptors which can quickly arrive and attack it, and the cruise missiles will do only moderate damage, and leaves the radiation cloud. Thought the idae of SCUD/Topol launcher is very luring... maybe a mission-only unit? Hazza-the-Fox 22:40, December 13, 2011 (UTC) Perhaps the 'missiles' are targetable suicide drones? To help differentiate it from other siege units? VolteMetalic 13:22, December 14, 2011 (UTC): How do you mean it? Hazza-the-Fox 21:49, December 14, 2011 (UTC) Well problem is we kinda already have an aerial siege unit (Siege Hopper), only its ordinance isn't even nuclear/toxic. Similarly, the Desolator already delivers nuclear waste at long-range. The result would be a unit that is essentially a better, simpler Siege Hopper that is easier to use- or a better desolator that can fly. Meaning that to make it more distinct and comparable, we'd need to either make it: *Short-ranged, rather than long, and probably a non-stationary attacker (or it would be too similar to Kirov) *Deliver its payloads by medium-speed, targetable, destructible 'drones', rather than un-interruptable missiles/shells. So I'd probably narrow the options down to either; #A bomber plane that flies (or circles) overhead and drops small radioactive toxin cannisters (as the Soviets currently lack a medium strike bomber) #Some kind of long-range launcher (either helicopter, airship, or perhaps hover-craft) that launches destructible nuclear drones/missiles Both of these would differentiate completely from anything we currently have, both in terms of function and role. VolteMetalic 11:42, December 15, 2011 (UTC): You know you speak about 2 National units, which you hardly can have at once? :) Hazza-the-Fox 12:33, December 15, 2011 (UTC) Yes, but if you were to offer option A- a long-ranged siege aircraft that has to land to fire a howitzer, or option B- a long-range siege aircraft that does NOT have to land to fire nukes- not much of a contest :P Hence we need to consider an alternate function for the new aircraft so its not directly comparable (getting apples and oranges). And the above ones were the only ways I can think of that would make this possible and fill in still empty roles not greatly filled by another Soviet/national unit yet... VolteMetalic 11:01, December 16, 2011 (UTC): When did I said it will be nukes? Hazza-the-Fox 13:35, December 16, 2011 (UTC) Sorry- got that impression (probably confused it when we tied it into the cuban nuclear missile crisis). I've crossed out the nukes part :P Still, the functions are very similar... though I think giving it destructible munitions might change that. VolteMetalic 09:39, December 17, 2011 (UTC): What do you mean? Hazza-the-Fox 10:51, December 17, 2011 (UTC) If the munitions in the second aircraft were destructible, it would add a new mechanic to it that acts as a deadly 'decoy' generator (like the old V3 launcher was). Of course, if the V5 missiles are also targetable, it may be better to either make the munitions some kind of 'shrapnel shower' generating weapons, or go with the other option (bomber that sprinkles cannisters). VolteMetalic 12:27, December 18, 2011 (UTC): I am more and more confused. Hazza-the-Fox 13:02, December 18, 2011 (UTC) No probs, its actually quite an interesting topic so I have fun explaining it. As you know, your typical artillery vehicles simply shoot at longer ranges- their projectiles can't be intercepted, and as such they will always score a hit on its target location. While the Red Alert 2 V3 Missile can actually be shot out of the sky before it reaches its target. This has three implications; #That the warhead, although extremely deadly, can be safely neutralized by enemy AA #Therefore, if the enemy AA must shoot at these projectiles to stop them crashing into you, they are distracted from shooting at the rest of your airforce- in particular, heavy air units like the Kirov. #As such, this kind of artillery differentiates from the other as instead of delivering guaranteed hits, it will either be destroying the enemy, or draining the enemy's ability to defend itself- thus providing cover for your forces, as your launchers are constantly spawning free aircraft to make suicide attacks- putting a great strain on your enemy's AA capabilities. At the moment, we have the Cricket Siege Hopper as the Soviet's "standard siege" AA unit, whose handicap is needing to land and deploy to use its siege attack- and its attack is purely standard artillery. And if possible, we might also be able to get the V5 Launcher to carry the second role of "V3 decoy launcher". As such, for a new aircraft unit to gain a long-range attack would make it a twin of the Siege Hopper- and the only way to substantially differentiate it would be to either make it a fly-by bomber craft; or, give it V3 missiles (and if V3s aren't possible- it could use its own version of drones); This second option in turn puts it slightly close to the V5 launcher- though this might be easier to work around and make some new differences. VolteMetalic 12:45, December 19, 2011 (UTC): Aha... but I meant it that the missiles can be shot down :D But I think that a normal fly-by and dropping radiation bombs (makes minor damage, but releases radaition) Hazza-the-Fox 21:03, December 19, 2011 (UTC) Agreed! Now we just need to think of a name.... VolteMetalic 11:35, December 20, 2011 (UTC): Hmm... maybe... skunk? :D Hazza-the-Fox 23:32, December 20, 2011 (UTC) Hehe- that doesn't actually sound too bad- I'll think about it.. Old Discussion Hazza-the-Fox 23:54, November 9, 2011 (UTC) Simply put, this is the place to discuss the possible inclusion of addtional units- ideas that may work- or may not but are worth looking into. a few that come to mind; Soviet National aerial Pariah (basically a Red Alert version of Emperor Battle For Dune's "Eye in the Sky" unit, that floats overhead, explodes (showering shrapnel (comporable to flak shrapnel)- and then parachutes down a suicide bomber). The inclusion of this unit may warrant modifying some heavier flak units (possibly also the MYK Dropship) to include a 'shrapnel shower' siege attack (or in MYK's case, the "welcoming party" attack).. Soviet National Psychic 'Bomber'- flies like a bomber jet or other aircraft- only it steals control of a unit instead. Perhaps if it had a few spare shots, players might be tempted to come back for another lucky shot (and risk getting shot down and losing control of the units it already had) An extra naval unit per side; These being an Allied Submarine, and a Soviet demo-barge (either AI or Pariah piloted)- bringing both sides to having two submersibles, and an even number of surface boats- making both a more persistent threat in the seas. Of course, creating a unit for one side would warrant (but not NEED) a unit for the other. But their functnion aught to be something that fills a positive and distinct niche its side warrants- but doesn't quite have (also remembering that each side having a few holes is a good thing). And that does not necessarily include these units I mentioned either- hence the topic! Thoughts? VolteMetalic 11:24, November 10, 2011 (UTC): I think this might be useful jsut for ideas :D Aerial Pariah... no, I am not really sure about it at all. They cna be transported by Super Hind, but something like this... Psychic Bomber. Hmm... it mgiht be an interesting mission target, somethign what must be destroyed before Yuri manufasturers more and will alunch them into Allied countries :) Thoguth it is first time I hear about mind-controlling aircraft, so it is highest uniqueness!!! Allied Submarine migth work, it migth be surface-attack-capable, like firing missiles :) And Soviet counterpart... the demo ship, thats not it. But Soviets has at their disposal Tesla coils, magnetic weapons and toxic arsenal. It mgith be somethign from this! :) Like with magnetic projectors it can pull the enemy ships closer, giving options for other ships to attack them. And maybe option to push all enemy units nearby like an shockwave. My idea is for Allied "Supercarrier". It is huge aircraft carrier, largest ship in Allied arsenal and maybe HQ of Allied Navy in Pacific. Its size might be equal to the airfield, and ts secondary will be "Deploy", where it will become a structure, from where you can purchase vehicles (larger than drones). Armed with an array of AA guns and missiles, and probably able to carry Raptors and Comanches, plus one new aircraft (something like cross between F-35 Lightning and F-18 Hornet, with majority from Hornet). It will be able to use also drones like Drone Carrier, maybe also produce small "gunship drones". Simply the pride of Allied Navy, which you will have in one mission at your disposal :) Hazza-the-Fox 13:58, November 11, 2011 (UTC) Agreed- so flying pariah is out (alternatively, how about cruise missiles? Basically jets that crash into their targets?) I agree too on the Psi plane- a good mission unit instead. A SS missile sub I think that would be the best way- I think actually, a small missile salvo would make a good secondary ability for a hypothetical allied sub (so as not to steal MARS' thunder as a primary attack). For soviet naval units, I'd probably steer clear of Tesla-based technology (the ocean is not exactly the safest or most practical place to discharge electrical/ionic weaponry). A toxic/corrosive/or-plain-explosive cannister launcher/ minelayer where the 'bombs' linger a bit, blocking access, could work... Also, a possibility for either Allies or Soviets- robotic homing torpedos? Discharged from either a sub or ship- they are destructible non-controllable units that swim up to enemy ships and explode? Super-carrier is a good call; serving as a large, floating naval base would be excellent. And agree also on some additional alternate jet fighters and hybrids too. VolteMetalic 16:18, November 11, 2011 (UTC): Cruise missile is fine. In theory, it can be just another "drone" (Soviet?) which is made for one or two purposes. To smash into things, and possibly as scout. Yeah, Allied sub might be like this, but than what will be its primary attack, if any? And than what will be its role? Actually, it makes great sense for Tesla weaponry on sea :) Look on Soviet Stingray in RA3. But I agree that some kind of contamianting tanker might work well. Its primary role will be to attack with radiation beam, damging vehicles with corrosion effect, and secondary to launch by an mortar a barrel which will create a no-go territory (something like mix of oil and waste). Hmm... no, it will be redundant to have the torpedo like this. Exactly! It is the pinacle and pride of the Alied navy, (probably) the largest ship in the world, center of the Allied Pacific Fleet. With the option to carry Raptors, a new kind of anti-ship aircraft (VTOL Hornet), the drones of the normal Drone Carrier (bombing, scout and AA drones) and maybe option to build few others (helicopter drone?). In the mission your objectives will be to destroy Soviet fleet attacking... maybe Australia? Or Alaska? And your other objective will be that the supercarrier must survive (obviously, with all the admirality on board). Also, for the naval resource gathering from the naval oil rigs. They will be carried normal ships, from the oil rig into specialized "naval refinery", probably called for both sides like "Harvesting Navayard", "Harvesting Port" or something like this.For Allies, I think they might have a normal tanker, and Soviets a specialized icebreaker :) Icebreaker will be just in appearance, no exact ability to be able to break throu-... or, it might be its secondary, to be able to speed up and ram a ship, damagiing it or destroying it while staying unaffected. For tanker, no ideas for now. What do you think? Hazza-the-Fox 22:00, November 11, 2011 (UTC) Easy- the Allied sub would otherwise be a weaker version of the Typhoon (the Typhoon could get instead get a robot super anti-shipping torpedo). And I actually hated the Stingray for that reason :P I think some kind of sea-mine launcher is probably the best- though I still think a small demo ship is a good idea. Agreed on the Carrier. For the Oil Rigs- I was thinking of just having them return it to the Shipyard, but a second resource-collection structure would be fine (or, have a land-or-naval form of the supply depot structure) VolteMetalic 23:49, November 11, 2011 (UTC): So US sub with a torpedoes, as secondary will have SS missiles, and Typhoon will be stronger and with "super torpedo". Like RA3 Akula Sub. That sounds fine. Or, US Sub (sorry I cally it US, its faster than Allied) might be armed with missile launcher, similar to the RA1 Missile Sub. Hmm... Well, if this ship will be armed with some sort of raygun, with a mortar to launch the toxic waste, it mgiht also carry a nuclear reactor, and so when being destroyed violantly expldoes like a Super Reactor :D For the supercarrier, this was my inspiration for that idea: http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/5/4016/alliedaircraftcarrier.png Plus Paraodx mod, in their lore there is mentioned a class of supercarrier, but I doubt it will appear anytime in the game. Now only the name of the ship is required, something mighty, democratic and simply something what makes you proud (and afraid) of just by hearing it. THan I can make an "article" for the unit in Allied Arsenal page. I also thoguht about the option that it will be the same structure with two forms, I think it wont be that problematic, but I am more concerned for the ore collector it will make. Will the naval refinery spawn a supply ship, or supply truck? Another thing I will need to ask. Hazza-the-Fox 08:58, November 12, 2011 (UTC) Yep! I think it's a nice balance- it presents itself as the same type of threat to Soviets as a Typhoon does (especially to warrant all that anti-sub tech when there are no dolphins around), and it adds a nice mid-ground with the ballistic-missile launching subs, without raining too much on the Dreadnaught's nor the MARS' parade. Hmmm, now that could work very nicely for a radiation-themed ship! That would be a fun unit to work out! I like that idea for the supercarrier- and I do agree it deserves an article, and it will also be fun thinking up a good name for it. Ah, yes, good point- perhaps a separate naval resource structure would be better after all. VolteMetalic 10:11, November 12, 2011 (UTC): Yeah, and that in present US has a nuclear submarines with abiltiy to launch missiles, so hence the idea from there :D Ofcourse, these subs wont have nukes :P Exactly! A really nasty ship which brings horror upon the seas. Definitely! :) Also, another inspiration for it is a flagship from Mass Effect, "Destiny Ascension". That gave me the idea that the supercarrier might be also a flagship of Allied Navy. Maybe the name might hint us for the supercarrier's name :) Yeah, but than we need to talk about the structures again. Hazza-the-Fox 05:14, November 13, 2011 (UTC) That too. I think the nuclear ship would have some interesting implications using its toxin cannisters alone- if they were to launch one, and if it missed, would remain floating in the water for a few extra seconds acting as a sea-mine; with a secondary ability to simply roll them overboard like a minelayer)- or alternatively, self-destructed. I figured it may help separate it a lot from the other ships in terms of how its attack would threaten the enemy. The mines are easy to destroy by any naval unit (and subs could swim underneath them anyway), and after a while will deactivate and sink harmlessly; but in combat or stopping an incoming battlefleet, would be a terrible threat. Cool... I could think of a few names; "Salvation", "Haven" (it is an airbase), although these are by no means as good as other names, but something to continue to talk about; Agreed- I will re-evaluate the structure tree (maybe quickly make an illustration for that too)? VolteMetalic 09:04, November 13, 2011 (UTC): I have had more in mind that its primary attack was a radiation gun, similar to Desolator's, and the launching of the toxic barrel as secondary, which after landing on water creates the oil-toxic stain. But as you say it, it will make it unique. The primary will be the mortar, which launches the barrels. If it hits, it will contaminate the enemy ship, giving it some drawbacks. When it misses, the barrel will remain on surface few seconds and than dissappears. During this, it will create a small toxic field which dissappears with the barrel. But the Secondary... what about that it will be kind of the minefield. THe ship will need to float into the designated area, and there it deploys the barrels contaminating the area for much longer time, and any unit which enters it will be contaminated and damaged over time for few seconds. Note that this Soviet ship is resistant to the contamination, but when you will directly attack it with primary by the same ship, it will be contamianted and damaged, and the same as if Desolator will attack it. Hmmm... what about "Independent Haven"? Just throwing the idea :D Yeah, a simply and quick illustration might be great. Hazza-the-Fox 21:25, November 13, 2011 (UTC) Sounds good. That name could work. And will do. VolteMetalic 21:39, November 13, 2011 (UTC): Independent Haven dont sounds that good, but "haven" should stay in it... United Haven... no. "Freedom Haven"... no. Will search for possible names :) Hazza-the-Fox 11:42, November 14, 2011 (UTC) I agree. Another alternative is "Celestial Haven"- throwing in a few religious-y words? That might sound a little too over-the-top though.. But I like Haven being in it. "Paradise" might be some rather odd and twisted name to give- might sound a bit too silly.. VolteMetalic 12:01, November 14, 2011 (UTC): Or "Path to Haven"... no, that will sound too close to "heaven"..."Civilized Haven"? The "Celestial Haven" might be our candidate inc ase we dont fnd anything better :) Maybe "Azure Haven" Hazza-the-Fox 13:26, November 14, 2011 (UTC) I'd agree, Celestial Haven (Celestial Sword/Crown?) may be the best candidate at the moment; (unfortunately for me, having read the GAP saga, its the only name I can think of that doesn't sound like any of those ships' names). Also, names I considered like "Liberator" sound a bit too much like the "Liberty-class" ships. VolteMetalic 19:26, November 14, 2011 (UTC): Yeah, I guess "Celestial Haven" might be the best option :) And Liberty-class is already used by Drone Carrier ;P For the class of Celestial Haven, it might be... "Government-class"? :P Hazza-the-Fox 22:58, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Of course, there could be other names like "Victorious" and "Sovereign"... VolteMetalic 23:34, November 14, 2011 (UTC): Sovereign-class might work well. Victroious might sound too similar to Victory-class, a name of Paradox's lore supercarrier. So it will be Sovereign-class Aircraft Supercarrier "Celestial Haven". That sounds magnificent! :D Hazza-the-Fox 08:12, November 15, 2011 (UTC) Agreed! That would be awesome!